Sub-populations of fish.
I was wondering what we want to do about sub-populations of fish that are maybe not currently recognized as subspecies, but are distinct. The are a number of fish where this comes up. The northern and southern brookies have already been listed, but there is are seven distinct forms of great basin redband, three distinct forms of bonneville cutthroat, two forms of rio grande cutthroat (pecos vs. rio grande drainages), two forms of colorado river cutthroat (green river vs. colorado river), two subspecies of dolly varden, three subspecies of arctic char( along with several other forms, and at least two forms of columbia basin redband.
My question is, do we want to just mention populations/ sub-divisions fish in the description or maybe do something with the native range maps on some just leave things as they are. Any thoughts??
I think--
if possible, and I know we are putting a lot on Anders--that we should include subpopulation info. I am sure between us we have quite a bit of info, pictures etc. Maybe without complicating issues there could be links to subpopulation pages from the main fish taxon page?
I was just about to add a
I was just about to add a subpopulation field on the taxon description pages. But as I was pondering where it would fit in, I concluded it might be better to make this information part of the 'profile' field. It seems like a natural fit. In fact, it would be hard to write a profile without mentioning subpopulations, knowing that you would have to write something about subspecies in the next field.
As for the maps, I will post some instructions on altering them. Look in the content revisions forum (editors).
Map Alteration Instructions
Thank you!